Detention beyond 24 hours without Magistrate’s authority, excluding journey time, vitiates arrest and remand.

The petitioners sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No. 214 of 2026, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 467 of 2026, involving alleged offences under Sections 140(3), 140(2), 115(2), 303(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution allegation was that the petitioners abducted and assaulted the informant in connection with repayment of ₹2 lakhs paid as an advance for arranging land, and took away his gold chain and ₹2,000 transferred through PhonePe.

The petitioners were apprehended in a jungle near Phulbani, Kandhamal, on 28 March 2026, but were produced before the Magistrate after 4:40 p.m. on 30 March 2026.

The petitioners contended that their detention violated Section 58 of the BNSS and Article 22(2) of the Constitution.

Section 58 of the BNSS requires an arrested person to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court.

Article 22(2) of the Constitution similarly prohibits detention beyond 24 hours without production before a Magistrate, subject to the exclusion of journey time.

The Court applied these safeguards as constitutional protections against unlawful or prolonged detention and exercised its discretionary power to grant bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

The Court found that the petitioners were apprehended on 28 March 2026 and produced before the Court only after 4:40 p.m. on 30 March 2026.

Although the apprehension occurred approximately 260 kilometres away from Cuttack, the Court allowed approximately 10 hours for the journey.

Even after excluding that period, the investigating agency had taken more than 40 hours to produce the petitioners before the Magistrate, substantially exceeding the permissible 24-hour period.

The absence of a recorded apprehension time did not alter the Court’s conclusion, since the undisputed dates and production time demonstrated non-compliance with Article 22(2) and Section 58 of the BNSS.

Accordingly, the arrest and subsequent remand were held to be vitiated, without the Court expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

Their bail application was therefore allowed, and each petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹20,000 with one solvent surety for the like amount, subject to conditions imposed by the Court below and excluding cash surety.

The BLAPL was disposed of, and the order was directed to be communicated electronically to the concerned Court and jail authorities.